Arbitration Policy

Peer Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal are subject to a rigorous peer review process to ensure the highest standards of academic quality and research integrity in accordance with COPE guidelines. Upon receipt of a manuscript, the Editorial Board conducts an initial screening to ensure that it complies with the Journal’s publication requirements. The manuscript is then screened using plagiarism detection software and reviewed by the Scientific Secretariat before being referred to two independent reviewers under a Double-Blind Peer Review process, in which neither the author nor the reviewers know each other’s identities. The reviewers evaluate the manuscript solely on the basis of its scientific content.

Each manuscript is assigned to reviewers who are specialists in the field of the submitted research.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, methodological rigor, clarity, significance, and scientific contribution to the field. Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the Editorial Board makes a decision either to accept the manuscript, request revisions (minor or major), or reject it for publication.

Peer Review Process

  1. Manuscript Submission

The peer review process begins with authors submitting their work to the Journal, where the corresponding author submits the manuscript to the Journal using its electronic submission system.

  1. Editorial Board Assessment

The Editorial Board verifies that the manuscript complies with the requirements specified in the Journal’s Author Guidelines. The quality of the manuscript is not evaluated at this stage.

  1. Editor-in-Chief Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript in terms of scope, originality, and merit to determine whether it should proceed to peer review. The Editor-in-Chief may reject the manuscript at this stage. Manuscripts submitted for publication that do not proceed to peer review are often considered unsuitable due to being outside the Journal’s scope or due to clear and significant methodological or scientific flaws.

  1. Appointment of Deputy or Associate Editor

In some cases, the Deputy Editor or Associate Editor may handle the peer review process. They are appointed at this stage.

  1. Reviewer Invitation

If the manuscript is accepted for peer review, the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor invites potential reviewers. Additional invitations are sent as needed until the required number of reviewers is secured—usually two reviewers. The handling editor supervises and monitors the peer review process from this stage and forwards reports to the Editor-in-Chief.

  1. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers evaluate the invitation based on their expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability, and then either accept or decline. In case of rejection, they may suggest alternative reviewers.

  1. Evaluation of Reviews

The handling editor reviews all returned reports before making a decision. If the reviews differ significantly, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide an opinion before a final decision is made. Alternatively, the Editor-in-Chief may request input from one or more members of the Advisory Board before making the final decision.

  1. Decision Communication

The editor sends an email containing the decision to the author, including any relevant reviewer comments. The comments are anonymous, in accordance with the double-blind peer review model.

  1. Next Steps

If the manuscript is accepted, it is sent to the production stage. If it is rejected or returned for major or minor revision, the handling editor includes constructive comments from reviewers to help the author improve the manuscript. At this stage, reviewers are informed of the outcome of their review. If the manuscript is resubmitted after revision, reviewers are expected to receive a new version unless they choose not to continue participating. However, if only minor revisions are requested, the managing editor may handle the follow-up review.

If authors appeal the editor’s decision with valid arguments, the manuscript may be sent to another reviewer, and the final decision is made based on their recommendation.

The peer review process typically takes 3 to 6 weeks and may vary depending on reviewer availability and the nature of the manuscript.

Evaluation Criteria

Scope / Field of Publication: Research must fall within the scope of the Journal.

Novelty: The information must not be derived from previously published research. It must be innovative and address an important research question in the field. It is also preferable that it has applicability beyond the scope of the study.

Methodology: The approach must be clear, appropriate, rigorous, and up to date.

Conclusions: Conclusions must be sufficiently convincing to warrant publication.

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and unbiased criticism of the research. Reviews must be objective and constructive, ensuring clarity of comments and their usefulness to authors. Accordingly, reviewers must adhere to the following points to ensure the quality of peer review:

  • Do not agree to review a manuscript solely to access it without the intention of providing a review.

  • Do not agree to review a manuscript that you find very similar to another manuscript under preparation or under consideration, and inform the editors in such cases.

  • If the reviewer notices any violations related to research and publication ethics, or has concerns about possible misconduct during the preparation or submission of the manuscript, such as significant similarity with a manuscript submitted simultaneously to another journal or a published paper, or any other ethical concerns, they must inform the Journal. The reviewer should contact the editor directly and not attempt to investigate the matter independently. Confidential cooperation with the Journal is required.

  • Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the manuscripts they evaluate. They must not disclose any information about the work or use it for personal gain, ensuring the integrity of the peer review process.

  • If a reviewer finds themselves unqualified to review a manuscript due to subject mismatch or any other reason, they must inform the Journal as soon as possible to avoid delaying the review process.

  • Reviewers are encouraged to complete their evaluations promptly to facilitate timely publication. Delays may hinder the publication of important research findings and affect authors’ academic progress.

  • Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including financial, personal relationships, or academic competition that may affect impartiality in the review process.

  • If a reviewer identifies a conflict of interest that may prevent a fair and unbiased review, they must inform the Journal and seek guidance. While awaiting a response, they must refrain from accessing the manuscript and related materials in case the review request is withdrawn.

  • Ethical obligations of reviewers include avoiding bias, respecting intellectual property rights, and acknowledging the contributions of others. Reviewers must adhere to the highest ethical standards in their evaluations.

  • Reviewers must not involve any third party in the review process (including early-career researchers under their supervision) without prior permission from the Journal. The reviewer must prepare the report personally unless authorized otherwise.

  • For scientific integrity, reviewers must not suggest that authors cite their own work (or that of colleagues) solely to increase citation counts. Suggestions must be based on valid academic or technical reasons.

Guidelines in Case the Reviewer Recognizes the Authors During Peer Review

If you suspect the identity of the author(s), inform the Journal if this recognition creates any competition or potential conflict of interest. Do not contact the authors directly without permission from the Journal. Ensure that all potential competing or conflicting interests are declared. If you are unsure whether a potential conflict prevents you from reviewing, please inform us. If you are currently working at the same institution as any of the authors, or have recently (e.g., within the past three years) been a supervisor, trainee, close collaborator, or co-recipient of a grant, you must disclose this.

Guidelines for Report Preparation

Formatting

Follow the Journal’s instructions for writing and submitting the review to the editor. If a specific format is required, use the tools provided by the Journal. Be objective and constructive in your review, and provide comments that help authors improve their manuscripts.

Language and Writing Style

Remember that the manuscript belongs to the authors. It is also important to provide suggestions to improve clarity; however, if the writing is clear and correct, do not attempt to rephrase it in your own style.

General Guidelines

It is the reviewer’s responsibility to comment on the quality and accuracy of the work received. If the work is unclear due to insufficient analysis, the reviewer should comment and explain the additional analyses that would clarify the submitted work. It is not the reviewer’s responsibility to expand the scope of the work beyond its current limits. Clearly specify any additional investigations (if any) that are necessary to support the claims made in the manuscript, and those that would enhance or extend the work.

Reviewer comments should not be left empty, nor should they consist of a single-sentence recommendation without an evaluation of the manuscript. Such responses are not useful for either the editor or the authors. Detailed feedback provides authors with information that can be used to adequately address the comments. Vague statements should be avoided, as they are difficult for authors to interpret and respond to. Comments and questions must be specific to the issues or concerns identified in the manuscript. Recommendations for revision must be justified, including reasons for the required changes, and review details should support publication recommendations.

Reviews should not consist solely of marked grammatical corrections.

We follow and encourage reviewers to adhere to COPE policies on peer review ethics to ensure integrity and transparency in the review process.

COPE Council. COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers — English.

https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9